DOCSLIB.ORG

Caucasian Languages [B.] George Hewitt FBA, Professor of Caucasian Languages, NME Dept., SOAS, Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square, London WC1H 0XG, UK

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Caucasian Languages [B.] George Hewitt FBA, Professor of Caucasian Languages, NME Dept., SOAS, Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square, London WC1H 0XG, UK Caucasian Languages [B.] George Hewitt FBA, Professor of Caucasian Languages, NME Dept., SOAS, Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square, London WC1H 0XG, UK. Around 38 languages are deemed to be indigenous to the Caucasus; often difficult demarcation between language and dialect explains the uncertainty. The ancestral homelands are currently divided between: Russia's north Caucasian provinces (Circassian, Abaza, Ingush, Chechen, Avaro- Ando-Tsezic, Lako-Dargic, northern Lezgic) de facto independent Abkhazia (Abkhaz, Mingrelian, Svan, Georgian, Laz) Georgia (Georgian, Mingrelian, Svan, Laz, Bats, Chechen, Avar, Udi) Azerbaijan (Lezgi, Budukh, Kryts’, Khinalugh, Rutul, Ts’akhur, Avar, Udi) Turkey (Laz, Georgian) Diaspora-communities of north (especially north-west) Caucasians can be found across former Ottoman territories, particularly Turkey, where the majority Circassian and Abkhazian populations reside and where the term 'Cherkess' often indiscriminately applies to any north Caucasian. Circassians are found in Syria, Israel and Jordan, home also to a significant Chechen population. Speaker-numbers range from 500 (Hinukh) to 3-4 million (Georgian). Many of the languages are endangered. Three families are usually recognised: A. South Caucasian (Kartvelian) Georgian Svan Mingrelian (Megrelian) Laz (Ch’an) [Scholars in Georgia regard Mingrelian and Laz as co-dialects of Zan] B. North West Caucasian Abkhaz Abaza Ubykh (extinct from 1992) West Circassian (Adyghe) East Circassian (Kabardian) C. Nakh-Daghestanian (a) Nakh (North Central Caucasian) Chechen Ingush Bats (Ts’ova Tush) (b) Daghestanian (North East Caucasian) 1. Avaro-Ando-Tsezic(/Didoic): Avaric: Avar Andic: Andi, Botlikh, Godoberi, K’arat’a, Akhvakh, Bagvalal, T’indi, Ch’amalal Tsezic: Tsez (Dido), Khvarshi, Hinukh, Bezht’a (K’ap’uch’a), Hunzib (these last two are sometimes regarded as co-dialects) 2. Lako-Dargic: Lakic: Lak Dargic: Dargwa (Dargi(n)) — some treat K’ubachi, Chiragh, and Megeb as full languages 3. Lezgic: Lezgi(an), Tabasaran, Rutul (Mukhad), Ts’akhur, Aghul, Udi, Archi, Budukh, Khinalugh, Kryts’ Some challenge the Lezgic status of Archi, Khinalugh, Budukh and Kryts’. Mutual intelligibility basically exists between Laz and Mingrelian, Abkhaz and Abaza, West and East Circassian. Only Georgian has an ancient tradition of writing, but during the Soviet period the languages in bold all enjoyed literary status. Publishing in Mingrelian, Laz, Ts’akhur, Aghul, Rutul and Udi was tried in the 1930s but discontinued, though there have been some post-Soviet attempts to publish more widely (including Dido). Phonetics and Phonology All Caucasian languages have voiced vs voiceless aspirate vs voiceless ejective plosives, affricates and occasionally fricatives, to which some add a fortis series (voiceless unaspirated or geminate). N.W. Caucasian is characterised by large consonantal inventories coupled with minimal vowel-systems, consisting of at least the vertical opposition open / / vs close / /. Ubykh possessed 80 phonemes (83 if the plain velar plosives attested only in loans are admitted), with every point of articulation between lips and larynx utilised and displaying the secondary features of palatalisation, labialisation, and pharyngalisation — Daghestanian pharyngalisation is normally assigned to vowels: Consonantal Phonemes for Ubykh ’ ’ ’ ’ ( ) ( ) ( ’) ’ ’ ’ qj Some recent analyses of Daghestanian languages have produced inventories rivalling those of the N.W. Caucasian, though no parallel minimality amongst the vowels is posited. One analysis of Archi assigns it 70 consonants: Consonantal System of Archi ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ Noticeable here is the presence of 10 laterals, though some specialists recognise no more than 3/4. Kartvelian occupies a mid-position with between 28 and 30 consonants (see Georgian). Georgian shares with Avar and Andi the simple 5-vowel triangle: Georgian-Avar-Andi Vowel-system Schwa is added to this in the other Kartvelian languages, whilst the various Svan dialects have length and/or umlaut, Upper Bal having the richest system: Svan's Upper Bal Vowel-system Triangular or quadrilateral vowel-systems are attested in Nakh-Daghestanian: Bezht’a Basic Vowel-system [All but / / possess long counterparts, and the nasalised vowels: / / have also been recognised] Hunzib Basic Vowel-system [All these Hunzib vowels have long counterparts, and fluctuating nasalisation on short vowels has been observed] The simplest (near-)quadrilateral system is attested in Chiragh Dargwa, with four pairs distinguished by length: Chiragh Dargwa Vowel-system ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Udi has been analysed with: Udi Vowel-system ( ) ( ) ( ) whilst Chechen presents the complicated system: Chechen Vowel-system [Most, if not all, of these can be nasalised as a result of the weakening of a following / /] Stress is sometimes distinctive (Abkhaz-Abaza) but usually not. Tonal distinctions have been proposed for some of the Daghestanian languages (Andi, Akhvakh, Ch’amalal, Khvarshi, Hinukh, Bezht’a, Tabasaran, Ts’akhur, Ingush and Budukh). Morphology N.W. Caucasian sememes are typically C(C)(V), and minimal case-systems combine with highly polysynthetic verbs, which may contain: up to four agreement-prefixes, locational preverbs, orientational preverbs and/or suffixes, interrogative and conjunctional elements, and markers of tense-modality, (non-)finiteness, causation, potentiality, involuntariness, polarity, reflexivity, and reciprocality (see Abkhaz). Kartvelian balances a moderate total of cases with reasonably complex verbs, which may contain: agreement with two or three (rarely four) arguments via two sets of agreement-affixes, directional/perfectivising preverbs (the large total in Mingrelian- Laz suggests N.W. Caucasian influence), and markers of tense-aspect-modality, causation, potentiality, version (vocalic prefixes indicating certain relations between arguments), and voice — Kartvelian is the only family to have a full active-passive diathetic opposition. Nakh-Daghestanian has complex nominal systems with both grammatical and sometimes large numbers of locative cases; Lezgi(an), Aghul and Udi apart, nouns fall into one of between two and (depending on the analysis) five or eight (largely covert) classes. Verbs are correspondingly simple: agreement is totally absent from Lezgi(an) and Aghul; elsewhere, verbs with an agreement-slot typically allow only class-agreement (Andic), though some languages (Bats, Lak-Dargwa, Tabasaran, Akhvakh, Archi, Hunzib, Avar dialects) have added perhaps rudimentary person-agreement, whilst Udi has person-agreement only. Some languages have a small selection of preverbs. Some distinguish perfective from imperfective roots. Some North Caucasian verbs can be construed transitively or intransitively (?passively), depending on the clausal structure; anti-passives are also attested. Avar illustrates a typical system of locative-cases: Avar Locative Case-endings Series Essive Allative Ablative 1. 'on' (.) (.) 2. 'near' 3. 'under' 4. 'in (mass)' 5. 'in (space)' -D (= class-marker) -D- Ergativity and some other oblique case-function are often merged in a single morph. Deictic systems range from two-term (Mingrelian, Ubykh, Kryts’), through three- term (Georgian, Abkhaz, Circassian), to five-term in a swathe of Daghestanian, and even six-term (Lezgi(an), Godoberi). Counting-systems are predominantly vigesimal, at least up to '99' (though Bats is vigesimal throughout), but some systems are decimal. Syntax Word-orders are: Kartvelian and Nakh-Daghestanian AN, GN, N-Postposition, SOV, though Old Georgian was rather NA and NG; N.W. Caucasian GN, predominantly NA, N-Postposition, SOV. Some degree of ergativity characterises all the languages but in Mingrelian, where the system was orginally as illustrated for Georgian (q.v.), the Ergative case-marker was extended vertically to replace the original Nominative for intransitive (including Indirect) verbs in Series II (Aorist Indicative and Subjunctive), where it functions as a Series II Nominative allomorph, the original Nominative effectively becoming an Accusative just for Series II — Laz has extended the case-marker horizontally across its three Series for all transitive subjects. Active- Inactive alignment plays a role in some languages (Bats). A Nominative/Absolutive argument is the obligatory minimum in a clause, and where verbs have class-agreeement, this is the determiner for the class-marker (which in some languages also appears on adverbs and as part of a locative case-exponent); the determiner for person-agreement in languages with class-agreement might be this same or a different argument (e.g. the logical subject), depending on a variety of factors. Verbs such as 'want', 'have', 'hear' are construed indirectly with the logical subject in an oblique case, but, if Kartvelian and N.W. Caucasian employ just the Dative/general Oblique case for this argument, greater distinctions can apply in Nakh- Daghestanian: Avar employs its Dative case with verbs of emotion ('love'), a locative (Series I Essive) with verbs of perception ('see'), and the Genitive for the possessor in conjunction with the copula. Only Kartvelian has the category of subordinating conjunctions, naturally associated with full clauses containing indicative or subjunctive finite verbs. Such structures are rare in North Caucasian, where one finds a variety of non-finite (nominalised) verb-forms fulfilling the subordinate role. Examples: vs mother-Erg meat.Absol3 3-fry-Past 'Mother fried the meat' vs 'The meat (was) fried' [Andi] brother-Erg water.Absol
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Grammatical Gender in Hindukush Languages
    Grammatical gender in Hindukush languages An areal-typological study Julia Lautin Department of Linguistics Independent Project for the Degree of Bachelor 15 HEC General linguistics Bachelor's programme in Linguistics Spring term 2016 Supervisor: Henrik Liljegren Examinator: Bernhard Wälchli Expert reviewer: Emil Perder Project affiliation: “Language contact and relatedness in the Hindukush Region,” a research project supported by the Swedish Research Council (421-2014-631) Grammatical gender in Hindukush languages An areal-typological study Julia Lautin Abstract In the mountainous area of the Greater Hindukush in northern Pakistan, north-western Afghanistan and Kashmir, some fifty languages from six different genera are spoken. The languages are at the same time innovative and archaic, and are of great interest for areal-typological research. This study investigates grammatical gender in a 12-language sample in the area from an areal-typological perspective. The results show some intriguing features, including unexpected loss of gender, languages that have developed a gender system based on the semantic category of animacy, and languages where this animacy distinction is present parallel to the inherited gender system based on a masculine/feminine distinction found in many Indo-Aryan languages. Keywords Grammatical gender, areal-typology, Hindukush, animacy, nominal categories Grammatiskt genus i Hindukush-språk En areal-typologisk studie Julia Lautin Sammanfattning I den här studien undersöks grammatiskt genus i ett antal språk som talas i ett bergsområde beläget i norra Pakistan, nordvästra Afghanistan och Kashmir. I området, här kallat Greater Hindukush, talas omkring 50 olika språk från sex olika språkfamiljer. Det stora antalet språk tillsammans med den otillgängliga terrängen har gjort att språken är arkaiska i vissa hänseenden och innovativa i andra, vilket gör det till ett intressant område för arealtypologisk forskning.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Phonetic Study of the Circassian Languages Author(S
    A comparative phonetic study of the Circassian languages Author(s): Ayla Applebaum and Matthew Gordon Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on Languages of the Caucasus (2013), pp. 3-17 Editors: Chundra Cathcart, Shinae Kang, and Clare S. Sandy Please contact BLS regarding any further use of this work. BLS retains copyright for both print and screen forms of the publication. BLS may be contacted via http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/bls/. The Annual Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society is published online via eLanguage, the Linguistic Society of America's digital publishing platform. A Comparative Phonetic Study of the Circassian Languages1 AYLA APPLEBAUM and MATTHEW GORDON University of California, Santa Barbara Introduction This paper presents results of a phonetic study of Circassian languages. Three phonetic properties were targeted for investigation: voice-onset time for stop consonants, spectral properties of the coronal fricatives, and formant values for vowels. Circassian is a branch of the Northwest Caucasian language family, which also includes Abhaz-Abaza and Ubykh. Circassian is divided into two dialectal subgroups: West Circassian (commonly known as Adyghe), and East Circassian (also known as Kabardian). The West Circassian subgroup includes Temirgoy, Abzekh, Hatkoy, Shapsugh, and Bzhedugh. East Circassian comprises Kabardian and Besleney. The Circassian languages are indigenous to the area between the Caspian and Black Seas but, since the Russian invasion of the Caucasus region in the middle of the 19th century, the majority of Circassians now live in diaspora communities, most prevalently in Turkey but also in smaller outposts throughout the Middle East and the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • THE INDO-EUROPEAN FAMILY — the LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE by Brian D
    THE INDO-EUROPEAN FAMILY — THE LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE by Brian D. Joseph, The Ohio State University 0. Introduction A stunning result of linguistic research in the 19th century was the recognition that some languages show correspondences of form that cannot be due to chance convergences, to borrowing among the languages involved, or to universal characteristics of human language, and that such correspondences therefore can only be the result of the languages in question having sprung from a common source language in the past. Such languages are said to be “related” (more specifically, “genetically related”, though “genetic” here does not have any connection to the term referring to a biological genetic relationship) and to belong to a “language family”. It can therefore be convenient to model such linguistic genetic relationships via a “family tree”, showing the genealogy of the languages claimed to be related. For example, in the model below, all the languages B through I in the tree are related as members of the same family; if they were not related, they would not all descend from the same original language A. In such a schema, A is the “proto-language”, the starting point for the family, and B, C, and D are “offspring” (often referred to as “daughter languages”); B, C, and D are thus “siblings” (often referred to as “sister languages”), and each represents a separate “branch” of the family tree. B and C, in turn, are starting points for other offspring languages, E, F, and G, and H and I, respectively. Thus B stands in the same relationship to E, F, and G as A does to B, C, and D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dravidian Languages
    THE DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES BHADRIRAJU KRISHNAMURTI The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011–4211, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia Ruiz de Alarc´on 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa http://www.cambridge.org C Bhadriraju Krishnamurti 2003 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2003 Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge Typeface Times New Roman 9/13 pt System LATEX2ε [TB] A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 0521 77111 0hardback CONTENTS List of illustrations page xi List of tables xii Preface xv Acknowledgements xviii Note on transliteration and symbols xx List of abbreviations xxiii 1 Introduction 1.1 The name Dravidian 1 1.2 Dravidians: prehistory and culture 2 1.3 The Dravidian languages as a family 16 1.4 Names of languages, geographical distribution and demographic details 19 1.5 Typological features of the Dravidian languages 27 1.6 Dravidian studies, past and present 30 1.7 Dravidian and Indo-Aryan 35 1.8 Affinity between Dravidian and languages outside India 43 2 Phonology: descriptive 2.1 Introduction 48 2.2 Vowels 49 2.3 Consonants 52 2.4 Suprasegmental features 58 2.5 Sandhi or morphophonemics 60 Appendix. Phonemic inventories of individual languages 61 3 The writing systems of the major literary languages 3.1 Origins 78 3.2 Telugu–Kannada.
    [Show full text]
  • Turkic Languages 161
    Turkic Languages 161 seriously endangered by the UNESCO red book on See also: Arabic; Armenian; Azerbaijanian; Caucasian endangered languages: Gagauz (Moldovan), Crim- Languages; Endangered Languages; Greek, Modern; ean Tatar, Noghay (Nogai), and West-Siberian Tatar Kurdish; Sign Language: Interpreting; Turkic Languages; . Caucasian: Laz (a few hundred thousand speakers), Turkish. Georgian (30 000 speakers), Abkhaz (10 000 speakers), Chechen-Ingush, Avar, Lak, Lezghian (it is unclear whether this is still spoken) Bibliography . Indo-European: Bulgarian, Domari, Albanian, French (a few thousand speakers each), Ossetian Andrews P A & Benninghaus R (1989). Ethnic groups in the Republic of Turkey. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert (a few hundred speakers), German (a few dozen Verlag. speakers), Polish (a few dozen speakers), Ukranian Aydın Z (2002). ‘Lozan Antlas¸masında azınlık statu¨ su¨; (it is unclear whether this is still spoken), and Farklı ko¨kenlilere tanınan haklar.’ In Kabog˘lu I˙ O¨ (ed.) these languages designated as seriously endangered Azınlık hakları (Minority rights). (Minority status in the by the UNESCO red book on endangered lan- Treaty of Lausanne; Rights granted to people of different guages: Romani (20 000–30 000 speakers) and Yid- origin). I˙stanbul: Publication of the Human Rights Com- dish (a few dozen speakers) mission of the I˙stanbul Bar. 209–217. Neo-Aramaic (Afroasiatic): Tu¯ ro¯ yo and Su¯ rit (a C¸ag˘aptay S (2002). ‘Otuzlarda Tu¨ rk milliyetc¸ilig˘inde ırk, dil few thousand speakers each) ve etnisite’ (Race, language and ethnicity in the Turkish . Languages spoken by recent immigrants, refugees, nationalism of the thirties). In Bora T (ed.) Milliyetc¸ilik ˙ ˙ and asylum seekers: Afroasiatic languages: (Nationalism).
    [Show full text]
  • LING 185 the Syntax of Austronesian Languages Preliminary Syllabus
    LING 185 The Syntax of Austronesian Languages Preliminary syllabus The goal of this class is to provide an introduction into comparative Austronesian syntax by discussing the most pertinent issues of Austronesian languages that have posed challenge to current syntactic theory and suggesting further readings and topics for discussion. The choice of the Austronesian language family as the focus of this class is not accidental. The Austronesian language family—roughly 1,200 genetically related languages dispersed over an area encompassing Madagascar, Taiwan, Southeast Asia, and islands of the Pacific—is often called the largest language family in the world. But it has been relatively little studied. Sophisticated research on the grammar of Austronesian languages did not really begin until the 1930’s and 1940’s (fueled, in part, by military interest in the Pacific region). Although there was a surge of interest in Austronesian in the 1970’s and—even more dramatically—in the 1990’s, the number of theoretical linguists working on these languages has remained small. Nonetheless, Austronesian languages have a significant contribution to make to linguistic theory, given the number of typologically unusual properties they exhibit (including the less common and poorly understood verb‐first word order, ergativity, and wh‐ agreement). If these languages were as well‐understood as, say, the Romance languages are today, syntactic theory could well be dramatically different. The following list illustrates just some of the intriguing features whose theoretical significance—already evident—will surely deepen when they are investigated from a comparative perspective: • Many Austronesian languages exhibit the uncommon word orders verb‐subject‐object (VSO) or verb‐object‐subject (VOS).
    [Show full text]
  • The Derivation of Compound Ordinal Numerals
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge Linguistics Faculty Publications Linguistics 2010 The derivation of compound ordinal numerals: Implications for morphological theory Gregory Stump University of Kentucky, [email protected] Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits oy u. Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/lin_facpub Part of the Linguistics Commons Repository Citation Stump, Gregory, "The derivation of compound ordinal numerals: Implications for morphological theory" (2010). Linguistics Faculty Publications. 11. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/lin_facpub/11 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Linguistics at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Linguistics Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The derivation of compound ordinal numerals: Implications for morphological theory Digital Object Identifier (DOI) 10.3366/word.2010.0005 This article is available at UKnowledge: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/lin_facpub/11 The derivation of compound ordinal numerals: Implications for morphological theory1 Gregory Stump Abstract In the domains of both inflection and derivation, there is evidence for both rules of exponence (which realize specific morphosyntactic properties or derivational categories through the introduction of specific morphological markings) and rules of composition (which determine how such rules of exponence apply in the definition of a compound’s inflected forms or derivatives). A single, general rule of composition accounts for the definition of a wide range of derivatives from compound bases; nevertheless, ordinal derivation demonstrates the considerable extent to which rules of composition may vary across languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Linguistic History and Language Diversity in India: Views and Counterviews
    J Biosci (2019) 44:62 Indian Academy of Sciences DOI: 10.1007/s12038-019-9879-1 (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().,-volV) Linguistic history and language diversity in India: Views and counterviews SONAL KULKARNI-JOSHI Deccan College, Pune, India (Email, [email protected]) This paper addresses the theme of the seminar from the perspective of historical linguistics. It introduces the construct of ‘language family’ and then proceeds to a discussion of contact and the dynamics of linguistic exchange among the main language families of India over several millennia. Some prevalent hypotheses to explain the creation of India as a linguistic area are presented. The ‘substratum view’ is critically assessed. Evidence from historical linguistics in support of two dominant hypotheses –‘the Aryan migration view’ and ‘the out-of-India hypothesis’–is presented and briefly assessed. In conclusion, it is observed that the current understanding in historical linguistics favours the Aryan migration view though the ‘substratum view’ is questionable. Keywords. Aryan migration; historical linguistics; language family; Out-of-India hypothesis; substratum 1. Introduction the basis of social, political and cultural criteria more than linguistic criteria. The aim of this paper is to lend a linguistic perspective on This vast number of languages is classified into four (or the issue of human diversity and ancestry in India to the non- six) language families or genealogical types: Austro-Asiatic linguists at this seminar. The paper is an overview of the (Munda), Dravidian, Indo-Aryan (IA) and Tibeto-Burman; major views and evidences gleaned from the available more recently, two other language families have been literature.
    [Show full text]
  • A Bayesian Investigation of the Origin Hypotheses of the Dravidian Family
    A Bayesian investigation of the origin hypotheses of the Dravidian family Dravidian language family has about 81 languages according to Glottolog1. The Dravid- ian languages are well-studied [Krishnamurti, 2003] from a historical linguistics viewpoint. Re- cently, phylogenetic methods originating from bioinformatics have been applied to infer absolute chronologies of language trees for range of language families such as Indo-European [Rama, 2018, Chang et al., 2015], Pama-Nyungan [Bowern and Atkinson, 2012], and Dravidian [Kolipakam et al., 2018] based on lexical cognate data. The recent study by Kolipakam et al. [2018] infers a time depth of 4500 years for the root age of the Dravidian family (for 20 languages) based on calibration points such as the antiquity of Old Tamil (2100 Before Present [B.P]) and the first attestation of Telugu inscriptions dating to 1300 years B.P. The inferred tree does not group South-Dravidian I and II groups together under a single node. Although, the authors infer an age that matches with the age proposed by Krishnamurti [2003], the location of Proto-Dravidian has not been inferred through phylogeography techniques. Apart from assigning an age, Krishnamurti [2003] links Proto- Dravidian to Indus Valley Civilization. On the other hand, based on linguistic innovations and archaeological record Southworth [2004], associates Proto-Dravidian to be spoken in Lower Godavari Basin. We test the statistical support for both the origin hypotheses by applying phylogeography techniques to the lexical cognate dataset under different assumptions. The results of the first set of dating experiment where the phylogenetic tree is topologically constrained according to the findings of the comparative method is given in table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • "Evolution of Human Languages": Current State of Affairs
    «Evolution of Human Languages»: current state of affairs (03.2014) Contents: I. Currently active members of the project . 2 II. Linguistic experts associated with the project . 4 III. General description of EHL's goals and major lines of research . 6 IV. Up-to-date results / achievements of EHL research . 9 V. A concise list of actual problems and tasks for future resolution. 18 VI. EHL resources and links . 20 2 I. Currently active members of the project. Primary affiliation: Senior researcher, Center for Comparative Studies, Russian State University for the Humanities (Moscow). Web info: http://ivka.rsuh.ru/article.html?id=80197 George Publications: http://rggu.academia.edu/GeorgeStarostin Starostin Research interests: Methodology of historical linguistics; long- vs. short-range linguistic comparison; history and classification of African languages; history of the Chinese language; comparative and historical linguistics of various language families (Indo-European, Altaic, Yeniseian, Dravidian, etc.). Primary affiliation: Visiting researcher, Santa Fe Institute. Formerly, professor of linguistics at the University of Melbourne. Ilia Publications: http://orlabs.oclc.org/identities/lccn-n97-4759 Research interests: Genetic and areal language relationships in Southeast Asia; Peiros history and classification of Sino-Tibetan, Austronesian, Austroasiatic languages; macro- and micro-families of the Americas; methodology of historical linguistics. Primary affiliation: Senior researcher, Institute of Slavic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow / Novosibirsk). Web info / publications list (in Russian): Sergei http://www.inslav.ru/index.php?option- Nikolayev =com_content&view=article&id=358:2010-06-09-18-14-01 Research interests: Comparative Indo-European and Slavic studies; internal and external genetic relations of North Caucasian languages; internal and external genetic relations of North American languages (Na-Dene; Algic; Mosan).
    [Show full text]
  • In Search of Language Contact Between Jarawa and Aka-Bea: the Languages of South Andaman1
    Acta Orientalia 2011: 72, 1–40. Copyright © 2011 Printed in India – all rights reserved ACTA ORIENTALIA ISSN 0001-6483 In search of language contact between Jarawa and Aka-Bea: The languages of South Andaman1 Anvita Abbi and Pramod Kumar Cairns Institute, Cairns, Australia & Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi Abstract The paper brings forth a preliminary report on the comparative data available on the extinct language Aka-Bea (Man 1923) and the endangered language Jarawa spoken in the south and the central parts of the Andaman Islands. Speakers of Aka-Bea, a South Andaman language of the Great Andamanese family and the speakers of Jarawa, the language of a distinct language family (Abbi 2006, 2009, Blevins 2008) lived adjacent to each other, i.e. in the southern region of the Great Andaman Islands in the past. Both had been hunter-gatherers and never had any contact with each other (Portman 1899, 1990). The Jarawas have been known for living in isolation for thousands of years, coming in contact with the outside world only recently in 1998. It is, then surprising to discover traces of some language-contact in the past between the two communities. Not a large database, but a few examples of lexical similarities between Aka-Bea and Jarawa are 1 The initial version of this paper was presented in The First Conference on ASJP and Language Prehistory (ALP-I), on 18 September 2010, Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany. We thank Alexandra Aikhnevald for helpful comments on an earlier version of the paper. 2 Anvita Abbi & Pramod Kumar investigated here.
    [Show full text]
  • Elevation As a Category of Grammar: Sanzhi Dargwa and Beyond Received May 11, 2018; Revised August 20, 2018
    Linguistic Typology 2019; 23(1): 59–106 Diana Forker Elevation as a category of grammar: Sanzhi Dargwa and beyond https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2019-0001 Received May 11, 2018; revised August 20, 2018 Abstract: Nakh-Daghestanian languages have encountered growing interest from typologists and linguists from other subdiscplines, and more and more languages from the Nakh-Daghestanian language family are being studied. This paper provides a grammatical overview of the hitherto undescribed Sanzhi Dargwa language, followed by a detailed analysis of the grammaticalized expression of spatial elevation in Sanzhi. Spatial elevation, a topic that has not received substantial attention in Caucasian linguistics, manifests itself across different parts of speech in Sanzhi Dargwa and related languages. In Sanzhi, elevation is a deictic category in partial opposition with participant- oriented deixis/horizontally-oriented directional deixis. This paper treats the spatial uses of demonstratives, spatial preverbs and spatial cases that express elevation as well as the semantic extension of this spatial category into other, non-spatial domains. It further compares the Sanzhi data to other Caucasian and non-Caucasian languages and makes suggestions for investigating elevation as a subcategory within a broader category of topographical deixis. Keywords: Sanzhi Dargwa, Nakh-Daghestanian languages, elevation, deixis, demonstratives, spatial cases, spatial preverbs 1 Introduction Interest in Nakh-Daghestanian languages in typology and in other linguistic subdisciplines has grown rapidly in recent years, with an active community of linguists from Russia and other countries. The goal of the present paper is to pour more oil into this fire and perhaps to entice new generations of scholars to join the throng.
    [Show full text]